Re: Patch Pilot Report for May 11th, 2019
Hello Andreas, On 5/13/19 7:37 AM, Andreas Hasenack wrote: > Thanks for this work! Could you perhaps include a link in your > template to the report that shows bugs needing sponsorship? People can > get curious, take a look, see a package they are familiar with, ..., > profit! > > :) That's a good idea; I'll do it next time. Thanks! -- Simon Quigley tsimo...@ubuntu.com tsimonq2 on freenode and OFTC 5C7A BEA2 0F86 3045 9CC8 C8B5 E27F 2CF8 458C 2FA4 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report for May 11th, 2019
Thanks for this work! Could you perhaps include a link in your template to the report that shows bugs needing sponsorship? People can get curious, take a look, see a package they are familiar with, ..., profit! :) On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 3:45 PM Simon Quigley wrote: > > Hello, > > I did another round of sponsoring today. Here's my report. > > - https://pad.lv/1825733 - unsubscribed sponsors, since bdmurray > sponsored the upload. Thanks! > - https://pad.lv/1825194 - the debdiff has been uploaded to the queue > (by someone else), unsubscribed sponsors. > - https://pad.lv/1828615 - asked the reporter to file a bug in Debian, > but someone familiar with kernel API calls should really be the one to > review. > - https://pad.lv/1827340 - pinged jamespage to take a look, as I'm not > particularly comfortable reviewing OpenStack packages. > > Current analysis of the queue, 횫 my last email[1]: > > - https://pad.lv/1828288 - it needs an SRU template, but I'm not going > to unsubscribe sponsors, given previous discussions. > > We're down to 11 packages in the queue! Let's keep up the good work. :) > > [1] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2019-May/040678.html > > -- > Simon Quigley > tsimo...@ubuntu.com > tsimonq2 on freenode and OFTC > 5C7A BEA2 0F86 3045 9CC8 > C8B5 E27F 2CF8 458C 2FA4 > > -- > ubuntu-devel mailing list > ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report: 2015-08-03
On August 3, 2015 8:42:05 AM CDT, Daniel Holbach daniel.holb...@ubuntu.com wrote: Hello everybody, NOTE: please help out with sponsoring, we have quite a number of request piled up! http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/sponsoring/ Here's what I got done in my shift today: syncpackage -s logan -b 1480750 libxaw -f syncpackage -s ari-tczew -b 1480612 libpciaccess -f syncpackage -s ari-tczew -b 1480500 libxrandr -f syncpackage -s ari-tczew -b 1480488 jbig2dec -f syncpackage -s ari-tczew -b 1478718 libfontenc -f syncpackage -s ari-tczew -b 1478720 python-ipaddress -f syncpackage -s ari-tczew -b 1478719 python-cryptography-vectors -f Sync wmsysmon 0.7.7-8 (universe) from Debian unstable (main) (pad.lv/1475495) Sync wmtop 0.84-10 (universe) from Debian unstable (main) (pad.lv/1475494) - synced. Merge 0.3.0-4 from debian experimental (pad.lv/1479156) lp:~noskcaj/gnome-menus/3.13.3 lp:~noskcaj/ubuntu/wily/gdm/3.16.2 - uploaded. Please merge antlr3 3.2-11 (universe) from Debian unstable (main) (pad.lv/1474294) Sync trafficserver 5.3.0-2 (universe) from Debian unstable (main) (pad.lv/1476470) - pinged. lp:~noskcaj/gnome-user-share/3.8 lp:~noskcaj/ubuntu/wily/light-locker - commented with a few questions. Have a great day, Daniel Please also keep in mind that we're in the middle of the libstdc++ transition [1] and the subsequent transitions when sponsoring. Thanks, Micah [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/GCC5 -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report: 2014-09-25
2014-09-25 19:42 GMT+03:00 Robie Basak robie.ba...@ubuntu.com: I can't close the MPs. Can somebody do that, please? The MP:s lack Abandoned status option, and removing the MP would lose the discussion history over it. So I did what I've seen others do, ie set as Merged to mean nothing to do anymore, even if it wouldn't be really merged. -Timo -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report: 2014-09-25
Timo Jyrinki [2014-09-29 9:15 +0300]: The MP:s lack Abandoned status option, and removing the MP would lose the discussion history over it. So I did what I've seen others do, ie set as Merged to mean nothing to do anymore, even if it wouldn't be really merged. What's wrong with Rejected? Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report: 2014-09-25
2014-09-29 10:27 GMT+03:00 Martin Pitt martin.p...@ubuntu.com: The MP:s lack Abandoned status option, and removing the MP would lose the discussion history over it. So I did what I've seen others do, ie set as Merged to mean nothing to do anymore, even if it wouldn't be really merged. What's wrong with Rejected? At least for me only the following options are available: - Work in progress - Needs review - Merged For example at https://code.launchpad.net/~filip-sohajek/ubuntu/utopic/silversearcher-ag/fix/+merge/232369 -Timo -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report [2014-03-12]
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:05:19 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: thanks to my fellow patch pilots the queue only had 37 items at the start of my shift today. So for the first time ever I was actually able to get done with the queue, there are now only 4 items left which are not actionable (FFE, needs fixing, or not uploadable by me). ♥ Thanks a lot for helping with the queue! -- Dmitry Shachnev signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report, 2013-11-15.
On 11/15/2013 07:28 AM, Martin Pitt wrote: Luke Yelavich [2013-11-15 15:03 +1100]: * Received a request from #ubuntu-devel to fix an important package that was broken, due to empty debs other than docs. I wonder whether auto pkg testing should check for this... Indeed, that's why it's useful to have even the simplest does my program start smoke test as an autopkgtest, to guard against packaging failures like that. Also adding support for autopkgtest to packages with an existing testsuite that can run against the package as-installed is relatively simple. It consists in adding a test control file, one or several scripts to wrap the call to the testsuite and a source record header to enable auto-discovery. Then on next upload your package will appear on jenkins[1] For example, in the case of simplejson (which is the package you're referring to I suppose) the diff is quite small [2] For reference the developer guide [3] explains the details. [1] https://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/view/Trusty/view/AutoPkgTest/ [2] https://code.launchpad.net/~jibel/ubuntu/trusty/simplejson/enable_autopkgtest/+merge/195380 [3] http://developer.ubuntu.com/packaging/html/auto-pkg-test.html Jean-Baptiste -- IRC: jibel -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report, 2013-11-15.
Luke Yelavich [2013-11-15 15:03 +1100]: * Received a request from #ubuntu-devel to fix an important package that was broken, due to empty debs other than docs. I wonder whether auto pkg testing should check for this... Indeed, that's why it's useful to have even the simplest does my program start smoke test as an autopkgtest, to guard against packaging failures like that. Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report bzr workflow used.
On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: I did quite a few bzr merge proposals. The workflow I used was this: bzr branch lp:~logan/ubuntu/raring/rbbr/0.6.0-6 cd 0.6.0-6 bzr bd -S sbuild ../build-area/*.dsc bzr diff -rtag:last-ubuntu | filterdiff -x .pc* bzr diff -rtag:last-debian | filterdiff -x .pc* debsign ../build-area/*_source.changes dput ../build-area/*_source.changes bzr mark-uploaded bzr push lp:ubuntu/rbbr Good tips. Could you add them to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/CodeReviews One thing I'd like to encourage is for folks to edit this page as they are doing their piloting, so that over time it gathers other good tips and tricks and becomes generally more helpful about best practices. Cheers, -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report bzr workflow used.
On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: I did quite a few bzr merge proposals. The workflow I used was this: bzr branch lp:~logan/ubuntu/raring/rbbr/0.6.0-6 cd 0.6.0-6 bzr bd -S sbuild ../build-area/*.dsc bzr diff -rtag:last-ubuntu | filterdiff -x .pc* bzr diff -rtag:last-debian | filterdiff -x .pc* debsign ../build-area/*_source.changes dput ../build-area/*_source.changes bzr mark-uploaded bzr push lp:ubuntu/rbbr Good tips. Could you add them to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/CodeReviews One thing I'd like to encourage is for folks to edit this page as they are doing their piloting, so that over time it gathers other good tips and tricks and becomes generally more helpful about best practices. Cheers, -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report bzr workflow used.
I'm glad I could be a part of this process. ;P On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@ubuntu.com wrote: I did quite a few bzr merge proposals. The workflow I used was this: bzr branch lp:~logan/ubuntu/raring/rbbr/0.6.0-6 cd 0.6.0-6 bzr bd -S sbuild ../build-area/*.dsc bzr diff -rtag:last-ubuntu | filterdiff -x .pc* bzr diff -rtag:last-debian | filterdiff -x .pc* debsign ../build-area/*_source.changes dput ../build-area/*_source.changes bzr mark-uploaded bzr push lp:ubuntu/rbbr It worked very well I had no hickups with any of the below listed branches I sponsored. It was quicker than using debdiffs / interdiff. And for some, the original new upstream tarball was in the branch as pristine delta, so I didn't need to manually fetch tarball. Here is my patch pilot report for today: reject (stray proposal): https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/precise/postgresql-8.4/precise-proposed/+merge/139408 comment: https://bugs.launchpad.net/pam/+bug/952185 sync: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/d-feet/+bug/1099704 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/subtitleeditor/+bug/1099769 won't fix: for same reasons as in debian https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/clementine/+bug/995689 push upload: https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/raring/lazr.delegates/lintian-fixes/+merge/143060 https://code.launchpad.net/~geoubuntu/ubuntu/raring/tvtime/1099042/+merge/143038 https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/raring/sblim-cmpi-base/1.6.2/+merge/143018 https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/raring/nxcomp/3.5.0-2/+merge/143017 https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/raring/rbbr/0.6.0-6/+merge/143015 https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/raring/swi-prolog/5.10.4-5/+merge/143007 https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/raring/festival/1-2.1-release-5.1/+merge/142843 upload debdiff: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libapache2-mod-python/+bug/1098597 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/alsa-lib/+bug/1085392 (Q P SRU) https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/alsa-lib/+bug/1085392 (Q P SRU) upstreamed: lp:~psusi/ubuntu/raring/indicator-power/show-ups upstreamed into lp:indicator-power https://code.launchpad.net/~charlesk/indicator-power/lp-1007095/+merge/143138 needs fixing: https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/raring/cutmp3/2.1/+merge/143016needs to honor DESTDIR https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/player/+bug/979841 needs python2.7 multiarch FTBFS fix. -- Regards, Dmitrijs. -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report bzr workflow used.
I'm glad I could be a part of this process. ;P On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@ubuntu.com wrote: I did quite a few bzr merge proposals. The workflow I used was this: bzr branch lp:~logan/ubuntu/raring/rbbr/0.6.0-6 cd 0.6.0-6 bzr bd -S sbuild ../build-area/*.dsc bzr diff -rtag:last-ubuntu | filterdiff -x .pc* bzr diff -rtag:last-debian | filterdiff -x .pc* debsign ../build-area/*_source.changes dput ../build-area/*_source.changes bzr mark-uploaded bzr push lp:ubuntu/rbbr It worked very well I had no hickups with any of the below listed branches I sponsored. It was quicker than using debdiffs / interdiff. And for some, the original new upstream tarball was in the branch as pristine delta, so I didn't need to manually fetch tarball. Here is my patch pilot report for today: reject (stray proposal): https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/precise/postgresql-8.4/precise-proposed/+merge/139408 comment: https://bugs.launchpad.net/pam/+bug/952185 sync: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/d-feet/+bug/1099704 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/subtitleeditor/+bug/1099769 won't fix: for same reasons as in debian https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/clementine/+bug/995689 push upload: https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/raring/lazr.delegates/lintian-fixes/+merge/143060 https://code.launchpad.net/~geoubuntu/ubuntu/raring/tvtime/1099042/+merge/143038 https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/raring/sblim-cmpi-base/1.6.2/+merge/143018 https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/raring/nxcomp/3.5.0-2/+merge/143017 https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/raring/rbbr/0.6.0-6/+merge/143015 https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/raring/swi-prolog/5.10.4-5/+merge/143007 https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/raring/festival/1-2.1-release-5.1/+merge/142843 upload debdiff: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libapache2-mod-python/+bug/1098597 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/alsa-lib/+bug/1085392 (Q P SRU) https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/alsa-lib/+bug/1085392 (Q P SRU) upstreamed: lp:~psusi/ubuntu/raring/indicator-power/show-ups upstreamed into lp:indicator-power https://code.launchpad.net/~charlesk/indicator-power/lp-1007095/+merge/143138 needs fixing: https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/raring/cutmp3/2.1/+merge/143016needs to honor DESTDIR https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/player/+bug/979841 needs python2.7 multiarch FTBFS fix. -- Regards, Dmitrijs. -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-de...@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2012-11-13
Am Dienstag, den 13.11.2012, 18:09 -0500 schrieb Barry Warsaw: 94 at start [...] 93 at end, but i think the qa reports page has a bit of lag ;) It is generated by a cron job that is run every 15 minutes. The arrival rate is high enough to keep one person busy to just process the new ones. ;) -- Benjamin Drung Debian Ubuntu Developer -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2012-11-13
On Nov 14, 2012, at 12:14 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote: Am Dienstag, den 13.11.2012, 18:09 -0500 schrieb Barry Warsaw: 94 at start [...] 93 at end, but i think the qa reports page has a bit of lag ;) It is generated by a cron job that is run every 15 minutes. The arrival rate is high enough to keep one person busy to just process the new ones. ;) Right. Actually what I was implying was that because uploads go through raring-proposed now, I'm not sure whether the bugs those uploads are linked to get closed until they hit raring. Cheers, -Barry -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2012-11-13
On 13 November 2012 23:32, Barry Warsaw ba...@ubuntu.com wrote: On Nov 14, 2012, at 12:14 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote: Am Dienstag, den 13.11.2012, 18:09 -0500 schrieb Barry Warsaw: 94 at start [...] 93 at end, but i think the qa reports page has a bit of lag ;) It is generated by a cron job that is run every 15 minutes. The arrival rate is high enough to keep one person busy to just process the new ones. ;) Right. Actually what I was implying was that because uploads go through raring-proposed now, I'm not sure whether the bugs those uploads are linked to get closed until they hit raring. Maybe we should adopt SRU procedures and mark the bug as fix committed if it's sponsored into -proposed? Regards, Dmitrijs. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2012-11-13
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 06:32:36 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: On Nov 14, 2012, at 12:14 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote: Am Dienstag, den 13.11.2012, 18:09 -0500 schrieb Barry Warsaw: 94 at start [...] 93 at end, but i think the qa reports page has a bit of lag ;) It is generated by a cron job that is run every 15 minutes. The arrival rate is high enough to keep one person busy to just process the new ones. ;) Right. Actually what I was implying was that because uploads go through raring-proposed now, I'm not sure whether the bugs those uploads are linked to get closed until they hit raring. They don't. While a bit frustrating from a process perspective, the result is that now bugs get closed when the binaries with the fix are available in the development release, not when the source is uploaded. I think that from a user perspective that actually makes more sense. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2012-11-13
On Nov 13, 2012, at 07:17 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: They don't. While a bit frustrating from a process perspective, the result is that now bugs get closed when the binaries with the fix are available in the development release, not when the source is uploaded. I think that from a user perspective that actually makes more sense. Agreed. I think it's fine that way, it's just something new to be aware of. -Barry -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report (2012-11-12)
Hi, Thanks for your work Martin. On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Martin Pitt martin.p...@ubuntu.com wrote: Hello all, throug my shift today I reduced the queue from 104 to 82, and uploaded a few autopkgtests which were created during UDS which haven't been in the sponsoring queue. Notes: lp:~fourdollars/language-selector/singleton_and_escape_key: upload lp:~ssweeny/ubuntu/quantal/branding-ubuntu/branding-ubuntu-lp885310: upload lp:~obounaim/ubuntu/raring/virtualbox/debian-merge: upload lp:~xnox/ubuntu-seeds/drop-ndis-ubuntu.precise: merged openssl (#1077228): upload cairo (#1077194): upload cairo SRU (#1074667): upload lp:~obounaim/ubuntu/raring/exim4/debian-merge: upload lp:~logan/ubuntu/raring/apt-listchanges/debian-merge: upload lp:~logan/ubuntu/raring/xterm/debian-merge: cannot turn this into something buildable, set to needs fixing lp:~logan/ubuntu/raring/xine-plugin/debian-merge: upload lp:~obounaim/ubuntu/raring/love/debian-merge: upload lp:~logan/ubuntu/raring/desktop-base/debian-merge: needs some cleanup ubuntu-defaults-nl (#1077354): upload lp:~hloeung/ubuntu/raring/rsyslog/fix-ownership-workdir: upload pango1.0 (#1073637): commit to Debian svn, will be synced tomorrow gdk-pixbuf (#1073528): commit patch to Debian svn, upload cairo (#1073374): commit patch to Debian collab-maint git, upload libpng (#1073538): forward patch to Debian BTS, upload libarchive (#1073390): commit patch to Debian collab-maint git, upload fluidsynth (#1073362): upload Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel -- *My Best Regards,* * Oussama* * * -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report 2012-10-15
Hello, On 15.10.2012 22:32, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 03:09:31PM -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote: Note, queue not going down as much as it could be because I saw a lot of things (correctly) being deferred to R I think we really need to come up with a better way of systematically deferring sponsorship queue items that doesn't involve individual sponsors taking responsibility for revisiting an item when the next release opens. That workflow tends to make developers very reluctant to move stuff out of the queue because they can't commit to being the one to do that work in $x weeks. I'd really like us to be able to have a central sponsorship deferral tag that we can batch process at the opening of the next release, so that we can deal with this more efficiently across the team. On https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/CodeReviews#Keeping_the_Sponsoring_Queue_manageable we say for things that are [n]ot suitable for the current release period: * Let the contributor know that the patch is not suitable for the current release period. * Unsubscribe ubuntu-sponsors, or mark the merge proposal status as Work in Progress. (Be sure to tell the contributor to reverse the process) * Subscribe yourself to the bug report (this ensures it shows up in the following url) * Milestone the bug to 'later'. * Visit https://bugs.launchpad.net/people/+me/+bugs/?field.milestone%3Alist=196 once the new release opens and upload the fix. Would this work? Have a great day, Daniel -- Get involved in Ubuntu development! developer.ubuntu.com/packaging And follow @ubuntudev on identi.ca/twitter.com/facebook.com/gplus.to -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report 2012-10-15
Hi Daniel, On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:59:49AM +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote: On 15.10.2012 22:32, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 03:09:31PM -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote: Note, queue not going down as much as it could be because I saw a lot of things (correctly) being deferred to R I think we really need to come up with a better way of systematically deferring sponsorship queue items that doesn't involve individual sponsors taking responsibility for revisiting an item when the next release opens. That workflow tends to make developers very reluctant to move stuff out of the queue because they can't commit to being the one to do that work in $x weeks. I'd really like us to be able to have a central sponsorship deferral tag that we can batch process at the opening of the next release, so that we can deal with this more efficiently across the team. On https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/CodeReviews#Keeping_the_Sponsoring_Queue_manageable we say for things that are [n]ot suitable for the current release period: * Let the contributor know that the patch is not suitable for the current release period. * Unsubscribe ubuntu-sponsors, or mark the merge proposal status as Work in Progress. (Be sure to tell the contributor to reverse the process) * Subscribe yourself to the bug report (this ensures it shows up in the following url) * Milestone the bug to 'later'. * Visit https://bugs.launchpad.net/people/+me/+bugs/?field.milestone%3Alist=196 once the new release opens and upload the fix. Would this work? Sorry, that's the process I meant. It doesn't actually require the sponsor to take responsibility for *sponsoring* the change at the opening of the next release, but they still have to take responsibility for checking in at the start of the release cycle and moving these bugs back into the queue. I think sponsors are more reluctant to follow such a workflow compared with one that would put bugs in a general deferred sponsorship queue that could be batch processed after the release opening. It's also more error prone to ask each of 50 sponsors to punt their later-milestoned bugs down the line, than it is to ask that /someone/ on the team run $magicscript to update all the deferred bugs at the release opening. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report 2012-10-15
On 16 October 2012 07:59, Daniel Holbach daniel.holb...@ubuntu.com wrote: Hello, On 15.10.2012 22:32, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 03:09:31PM -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote: Note, queue not going down as much as it could be because I saw a lot of things (correctly) being deferred to R I think we really need to come up with a better way of systematically deferring sponsorship queue items that doesn't involve individual sponsors taking responsibility for revisiting an item when the next release opens. That workflow tends to make developers very reluctant to move stuff out of the queue because they can't commit to being the one to do that work in $x weeks. I'd really like us to be able to have a central sponsorship deferral tag that we can batch process at the opening of the next release, so that we can deal with this more efficiently across the team. On https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/CodeReviews#Keeping_the_Sponsoring_Queue_manageable we say for things that are [n]ot suitable for the current release period: * Let the contributor know that the patch is not suitable for the current release period. * Unsubscribe ubuntu-sponsors, or mark the merge proposal status as Work in Progress. (Be sure to tell the contributor to reverse the process) * Subscribe yourself to the bug report (this ensures it shows up in the following url) * Milestone the bug to 'later'. * Visit https://bugs.launchpad.net/people/+me/+bugs/?field.milestone%3Alist=196 once the new release opens and upload the fix. Would this work? I was doing something different. I was opening r-series task, and won't fixing q-series task for bugs. To me, that seemed more clear what needs to happen. While the bugs are somewhat manageable, the branches are slight more difficult. At the r-series opening, the current nickname lp:ubuntu/package will actually be turned into nickname lp:ubuntu/quantal/package of the actual branch name. That also mean that all the work in progress branches will suddenly become SRUs. So somehow on day 0 it would be nice to reject re-propose all merge proposals that: (i) target into lp:ubuntu/quantal/package AND (ii) top of the debian/changelog is targeting quantal. This should roughly prevent re-targeting real SRUs to r-series. but a generic approach might be: ~ubuntu-next-series-sponsors which is subscribed to bugs asked to review branch proposals, with a mass s/ubuntu-next-series-sponsors/ubuntu-sponsors/ are archive opening. Regards, Dmitrijs -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report 2012-10-15
Hello, On 16.10.2012 10:49, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: I was doing something different. I was opening r-series task, and won't fixing q-series task for bugs. To me, that seemed more clear what needs to happen. I agree that it's more clear. Still I think I'd prefer to just use a tag as a general Ubuntu task always means the development release, so there's no need to have separate teams (do we have separate roles?) or separate milestones/series tasks - which might be harder to use for people who are not in ~ubuntu-bug-control. While the bugs are somewhat manageable, the branches are slight more difficult. At the r-series opening, the current nickname lp:ubuntu/package will actually be turned into nickname lp:ubuntu/quantal/package of the actual branch name. That also mean that all the work in progress branches will suddenly become SRUs. So somehow on day 0 it would be nice to reject re-propose all merge proposals that: (i) target into lp:ubuntu/quantal/package AND (ii) top of the debian/changelog is targeting quantal. This should roughly prevent re-targeting real SRUs to r-series. I agree this is much more of a problem. Still I think it'd be great if we could be VERY pragmatic here and just take those merge proposals, update the changelog entry ourselves and go upload it and (if necessary, have somebody) mark the branch as merged. I wouldn't like us to 1) ask new contributors to follow a new process or 2) wait for somebody to write a tool for us which reproposes everything. In my mind, the more we just do the obvious and make it work for the contributor, the better. :-) but a generic approach might be: ~ubuntu-next-series-sponsors which is subscribed to bugs asked to review branch proposals, with a mass s/ubuntu-next-series-sponsors/ubuntu-sponsors/ are archive opening. As I said above, I think I'd prefer to unsubscribe and use a tag, but maybe there are disadvantages I didn't think of. This is a very useful discussion and I hope it'll help us keep the queue more manageable. Have a great day, Daniel -- Get involved in Ubuntu development! developer.ubuntu.com/packaging And follow @ubuntudev on identi.ca/twitter.com/facebook.com/gplus.to -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report 2012-10-15
Hello, On 16.10.2012 12:16, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: But tag should work fine if I can spell it right =) Maybe we need a lp-postpone bugnumber and lp-unpostpone-all commands to get that right for us. :-) Have a great day, Daniel -- Get involved in Ubuntu development! developer.ubuntu.com/packaging And follow @ubuntudev on identi.ca/twitter.com/facebook.com/gplus.to -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report 2012-10-15
Hi Dmitrijs (2012.10.16_12:16:26_+0200) I don't know if per-package uploaders are in ~ubuntu-dev or not. They are. SR -- Stefano Rivera http://tumbleweed.org.za/ H: +27 21 461 1230 C: +27 72 419 8559 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 20120615
Hello, On 15.06.2012 14:08, James Page wrote: SRU's which have been uploaded but not accepted are hard to differentiate on the report - they don't require any further sponsor action so it would be good to be able to filter those out if possible. That's a good point. I usually set the bug to 'fix committed', subscribe myself and unsubscribe ubuntu-sponsors, so I can follow up if necessary. Maybe this could be clearer on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/CodeReviews? Have a great day, Daniel -- Get involved in Ubuntu development! developer.ubuntu.com/packaging And follow @ubuntudev on identi.ca/twitter.com/facebook.com/gplus.to -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 20120615
Hi Daniel On 15/06/12 13:31, Daniel Holbach wrote: On 15.06.2012 14:08, James Page wrote: SRU's which have been uploaded but not accepted are hard to differentiate on the report - they don't require any further sponsor action so it would be good to be able to filter those out if possible. That's a good point. I usually set the bug to 'fix committed', subscribe myself and unsubscribe ubuntu-sponsors, so I can follow up if necessary. Maybe this could be clearer on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/CodeReviews? I don't think this is a challenge with bugs (although it could be more explicit in the Code Review docs). Merge proposals create more of a challenge as I'm unable to set 'Fix Committed' in the same way so they just lurk around until they get 'Merged' which could take some time. Not sure we can do to much about that. -- James Page Ubuntu Core Developer Debian Maintainer james.p...@ubuntu.com -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 20120615
Excerpts from James Page's message of 2012-06-15 05:57:41 -0700: Hi Daniel On 15/06/12 13:31, Daniel Holbach wrote: On 15.06.2012 14:08, James Page wrote: SRU's which have been uploaded but not accepted are hard to differentiate on the report - they don't require any further sponsor action so it would be good to be able to filter those out if possible. That's a good point. I usually set the bug to 'fix committed', subscribe myself and unsubscribe ubuntu-sponsors, so I can follow up if necessary. Maybe this could be clearer on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/CodeReviews? I don't think this is a challenge with bugs (although it could be more explicit in the Code Review docs). Merge proposals create more of a challenge as I'm unable to set 'Fix Committed' in the same way so they just lurk around until they get 'Merged' which could take some time. Not sure we can do to much about that. Can we change them to 'Approved' ? If so, that would be a good status to filter out of the sponsoring report, and something to be careful to only set after uploading to the -proposed queue. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot report 2011-11-08
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 11/08/2011 08:31 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: *** https://code.launchpad.net/~jsjgruber/ubuntu/oneiric/couchdb/couchdb.fix780972.r1039345/+merge/74677 - - dobey already forked this and had it uploaded. (Delete or Work In Progress) https://code.launchpad.net/~utlemming/ubuntu/oneiric/autofs5/oneiric/+merge/76120 - - commented on branch with instructions to fix start on line. (Work In Progress) https://code.launchpad.net/~paulbrianstewart/ubuntu/oneiric/ri-li/858553-Spelling-Error-Fix/+merge/76874 - - Already NACK'd (Delete or Work In Progress) https://code.launchpad.net/~paulbrianstewart/ubuntu/oneiric/gpredict/859367-Spelling-Grammar-Fix/+merge/76934 - - Disapproved, this was already addressed in Debian and will flow in via merge or sync. (Delete or Work In Progress) https://code.launchpad.net/~gandelman-a/ubuntu/oneiric/cobbler/lp850880-850866/+merge/78904 - - already finished, was targetted incorrectly at lp:ubuntu/oneiric/cobbler instead of lp:ubuntu/cobbler, so needs to be marked as Merged manually. (Merged) *** Need somebody from ubuntu-branches to mark the MP's above as Work in Progress, Merged, or delete them, to get them off sponsorship queue. *** Done - -- Stéphane Graber Ubuntu developer http://www.ubuntu.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOueenAAoJEMY4l01keS1nKFAQALOfFC3zjR7OzSGyPICD9xYs 5Cccjs5W2nBl8fQkyOdna+ZSklmHxcr+oQpukvUyK2KilzyTh3/CNXZW0r1L8N2s 76kYjXvAxDovqUWuYgsBjSuMxVKjfRUvpkocnnQOkt1e+U1glSz689QCZKuGq8ae T80w8zjbQYEj+8nq/JY07VsEL2iqhEnmuSHdHy4/S1RUqh5zxFwR1WPw/ucJSVK9 JHFlus3cCvUVre3/sYQAnk6f7g+9sRsqx/wh/1mehp3c961z7nQY/1Mtdr13QN1q V2TaYXUeW2NqCklhgvWaVfHvS6r2EZXSOTVYV3D73KL74MN/fXqeKtwPJQImBV2W 4Z3eAtFdu4ZpsM+BnyOl8KQHbCWaHKQGZE8WSGl2T5TRZKeqoKGfILuS9Oa1gaOa 12DsMsmP6DB29WuI0vAFSL/JXsd5WOx8kBF3Z7aNbDuIFc21DNXKLFvS++wNtnlY xCXs9uGbKKwSg/v9qr0lLoiAJovphi1NvqktBoVELm9VLM6UT2YLwYCFp3iKaVaM cKws2HVI1mmcjYnYr+x4HS0t64wnL334IvaF/3d4GsdbyxSKU/WEJ8OA0zerevNj OsovzjuWHdAjLOWEHVULgxhV72SAow/zLoXozjNvzvbxcODgLXQfO7arJtTtX1qt PcfeBYrghizViQMnSy7v =bus6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2011-10-25
On 10/25/2011 04:46 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote: Am Dienstag, den 25.10.2011, 12:47 -0500 schrieb Micah Gersten: On 10/25/2011 07:19 AM, James Page wrote: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apcalc/+bug/880074 Build OK - synced from Debian testing. Until we can sponsor syncs through the LP API [1], and as long as there's not an immediate need for the sync, we should probably just subscribe ubuntu-archive, unsubcribe ubuntu-sponsors, and set to Confirmed once a sync is validated so that the requester can get proper credit for it. You can use sponsor-patch in oneiric, which does this job for you. I thought sponsor-patch was for patches/merges, we're talking about syncs here. Thanks, Micah -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2011-10-25
On 10/26/2011 04:22 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 26.10.2011, 03:07 -0500 schrieb Micah Gersten: On 10/25/2011 04:46 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote: Am Dienstag, den 25.10.2011, 12:47 -0500 schrieb Micah Gersten: On 10/25/2011 07:19 AM, James Page wrote: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apcalc/+bug/880074 Build OK - synced from Debian testing. Until we can sponsor syncs through the LP API [1], and as long as there's not an immediate need for the sync, we should probably just subscribe ubuntu-archive, unsubcribe ubuntu-sponsors, and set to Confirmed once a sync is validated so that the requester can get proper credit for it. You can use sponsor-patch in oneiric, which does this job for you. I thought sponsor-patch was for patches/merges, we're talking about syncs here. It supports to sponsor syncs, too. One tool to rule them all. ;) It's probably a somewhat archaic view, but that's not a very Unix like approach to the problem. If I was going to work on syncing a package, I'd expect the tool for syncing packages to be the one I wanted to use ... Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2011-10-25
Hi Scott (2011.10.26_16:01:15_+0200) One tool to rule them all. ;) It's probably a somewhat archaic view, but that's not a very Unix like approach to the problem. If I was going to work on syncing a package, I'd expect the tool for syncing packages to be the one I wanted to use ... But there's a big overlap in functionality. Reviewing a merge and a sync both require test building, and a having a quick look at the diff and new changelog entries. Also, native syncs can't indicate sponsorship, yet (LP: #827555), so syncpackage isn't much help. SR -- Stefano Rivera http://tumbleweed.org.za/ H: +27 21 465 6908 C: +27 72 419 8559 UCT: x3127 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2011-10-25
On 10/26/2011 10:07 AM, Stefano Rivera wrote: Hi Scott (2011.10.26_16:01:15_+0200) One tool to rule them all. ;) It's probably a somewhat archaic view, but that's not a very Unix like approach to the problem. If I was going to work on syncing a package, I'd expect the tool for syncing packages to be the one I wanted to use ... But there's a big overlap in functionality. Reviewing a merge and a sync both require test building, and a having a quick look at the diff and new changelog entries. Also, native syncs can't indicate sponsorship, yet (LP: #827555), so syncpackage isn't much help. For sponsoring, sure, but for your own uploads, not so much. I should probably remember I'm on break from Ubuntu development and not get sucked into this, but I'll just throw out the idea that if sponsor-patch is doing the job, then the issue isn't one of can/can't, but where the functionality should most properly reside. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2011-10-25
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On 10/26/2011 10:07 AM, Stefano Rivera wrote: Hi Scott (2011.10.26_16:01:15_+0200) One tool to rule them all. ;) It's probably a somewhat archaic view, but that's not a very Unix like approach to the problem. If I was going to work on syncing a package, I'd expect the tool for syncing packages to be the one I wanted to use ... But there's a big overlap in functionality. Reviewing a merge and a sync both require test building, and a having a quick look at the diff and new changelog entries. Also, native syncs can't indicate sponsorship, yet (LP: #827555), so syncpackage isn't much help. For sponsoring, sure, but for your own uploads, not so much. I should probably remember I'm on break from Ubuntu development and not get sucked into this, but I'll just throw out the idea that if sponsor-patch is doing the job, then the issue isn't one of can/can't, but where the functionality should most properly reside. My impression is that sponsor-patch doesn't sync the package correctly indicating the bug filer as uploader, which is is the behavior that I'd like to see in syncpackage. I think it just sets the bug to confirmed, subscribes ubuntu-archive, and unsubscribes the sponsors team. As such, it has more to do with sponsoring rather than syncing. So sponsor-patch seems like a good bike shed to keep it in. Of course, I'm not sure as none of this seems documented. (Just filed LP: #882085) Thanks, -- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio Ubuntu Developer https://launchpad.net/~andrewsomething Debian Maintainer http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=a.starr.b%40gmail.com PGP/GPG Key ID: D53FDCB1 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2011-10-25
Am Mittwoch, den 26.10.2011, 11:13 -0400 schrieb Andrew Starr-Bochicchio: On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: On 10/26/2011 10:07 AM, Stefano Rivera wrote: Hi Scott (2011.10.26_16:01:15_+0200) One tool to rule them all. ;) It's probably a somewhat archaic view, but that's not a very Unix like approach to the problem. If I was going to work on syncing a package, I'd expect the tool for syncing packages to be the one I wanted to use ... But there's a big overlap in functionality. Reviewing a merge and a sync both require test building, and a having a quick look at the diff and new changelog entries. Also, native syncs can't indicate sponsorship, yet (LP: #827555), so syncpackage isn't much help. For sponsoring, sure, but for your own uploads, not so much. I should probably remember I'm on break from Ubuntu development and not get sucked into this, but I'll just throw out the idea that if sponsor-patch is doing the job, then the issue isn't one of can/can't, but where the functionality should most properly reside. My impression is that sponsor-patch doesn't sync the package correctly indicating the bug filer as uploader, which is is the behavior that I'd like to see in syncpackage. I think you mixed both names up. syncpackage does not yet support indicating the bug filer as uploader. Until that is fixed, sponsor-patch will subscribe ubuntu-archive. When this bug is fixed, sponsor-patch will use syncpackage to sponsor a sync. I think it just sets the bug to confirmed, subscribes ubuntu-archive, and unsubscribes the sponsors team. As such, it has more to do with sponsoring rather than syncing. So sponsor-patch seems like a good bike shed to keep it in. Of course, I'm not sure as none of this seems documented. (Just filed LP: #882085) Yes, support for sync requests is not yet documented in the man page. -- Benjamin Drung Debian Ubuntu Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot report 2011/10/25
Hello Chris, Christopher James Halse Rogers [2011-10-25 18:51 +1100]: The following merges require status changes: All done. Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2011-10-25
On 10/25/2011 07:19 AM, James Page wrote: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apcalc/+bug/880074 Build OK - synced from Debian testing. Until we can sponsor syncs through the LP API [1], and as long as there's not an immediate need for the sync, we should probably just subscribe ubuntu-archive, unsubcribe ubuntu-sponsors, and set to Confirmed once a sync is validated so that the requester can get proper credit for it. If there is an immediate need, I'd suggest asking an archive admin in #ubuntu-devel to do the sync. Of course, world burning need would be at your discretion :) Thanks, Micah [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/827555 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2011-10-25
Am Dienstag, den 25.10.2011, 12:47 -0500 schrieb Micah Gersten: On 10/25/2011 07:19 AM, James Page wrote: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apcalc/+bug/880074 Build OK - synced from Debian testing. Until we can sponsor syncs through the LP API [1], and as long as there's not an immediate need for the sync, we should probably just subscribe ubuntu-archive, unsubcribe ubuntu-sponsors, and set to Confirmed once a sync is validated so that the requester can get proper credit for it. You can use sponsor-patch in oneiric, which does this job for you. -- Benjamin Drung Debian Ubuntu Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report - 2011/07/27
Am Mittwoch, den 27.07.2011, 17:39 -0400 schrieb Stéphane Graber: NOTE: Is the report still updating? I seem to remember it updating every 30 minutes or so, but last update was more than 10 hours ago... It should be updated even 15 or 30 minutes. So no, there seems to be a problem. I pulled the latest sponsoring code and ran it. It works without any crash. No idea, why the sponsoring overview isn't updated any more. -- Benjamin Drung Debian Ubuntu Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report - 2011/07/27
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:00:13 +0200, Benjamin Drung bdr...@ubuntu.com wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 27.07.2011, 17:39 -0400 schrieb Stéphane Graber: NOTE: Is the report still updating? I seem to remember it updating every 30 minutes or so, but last update was more than 10 hours ago... It should be updated even 15 or 30 minutes. So no, there seems to be a problem. I pulled the latest sponsoring code and ran it. It works without any crash. No idea, why the sponsoring overview isn't updated any more. The machine it is running on is having problems. It is being worked on I believe, but I don't know an ETA for a solution. I also don't know if there as an RT ticket for tracking it. Consider this an almost content-free message then :-) Thanks, James -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot report, 2011/07/26
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 02:37:43PM EST, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote: I tried to do a sweep of the “Needs Fixing” branches in the hope of quickly knocking out some of the noise. Of course, it always takes longer than you think… https://code.launchpad.net/~pro-mathesh812004/ubuntu/oneiric/scim-tables/oneiric/+merge/64119 • Set status to In Progress, noted what the submitter needed to do to get the merge back on the queue. • Asked about the “All rights reserved” copyright statement on the submitted tables. https://code.launchpad.net/~fougner/ubuntu/oneiric/kdepim/fix-for-791635/+merge/65073 • Checked out the upstream status; there's some ongoing discussion. • Set to In Progress https://code.launchpad.net/~dpolehn-gmail/ubuntu/oneiric/pxlib/fix-755924-use-pkg-config/+merge/65151 • Last Needs Fixing review has not been responded to. • Set to In Progress There is actually a packaging branch for pulseaudio maintained at lp:~ubuntu-audio-dev/pulseaudio/ubuntu.oneiric. In terms of patch piloting, do we have something in place to indicate that the UDD packaging branches should not be used? Luke -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2011-07-22
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 13:52, Scott Moser smo...@ubuntu.com wrote: - lp:~vanvugt/ubuntu/natty/bcmwl/fix-793890 https://code.launchpad.net/~vanvugt/ubuntu/natty/bcmwl/fix-793890/+merge/67294 This trivial fix needs merging and uploading to natty-proposed. The fix for bug 776439 was merged and uploaded to natty-proposed, but was broken on install, causing this bug. Please someone upload. Uploaded, waiting for accept -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2011-07-22
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Scott Moser smo...@ubuntu.com wrote: - lp:~pro-mathesh812004/ubuntu/oneiric/scim-tables/oneiric https://code.launchpad.net/~pro-mathesh812004/ubuntu/oneiric/scim-tables/oneiric/+merge/64119 This merge proposal has 1 comment that is needs fixing. Why is it in the queue? Shouldn't it be moved? No review or comment - good bad or otherwise - will cause a merge proposal to fall off of the queue. If you want to remove an MP from the queue, change the status at the top of the page to Work in progress. Preferably with a note to the submitter telling them how to reinsert it back into the queue. - Evan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report 2011-07-07
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:12:29 +0200, Didier Roche didro...@ubuntu.com wrote: https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/oneiric/opendrim-lmp-powermanagement/oneiric-201107070710/+merge/67122 - the patch and content is in the source package. The thing is, as it was the first patch, the debian/patches directory was created in both branches, and so the ids don't match, hence the conflict. Any idea how to detect (making a traditional diff first?) and not make the autoimporter conflicting? To avoid further conflicts, as I couldn't set the status to rejected but still waiting to get the MR off the list, I set the status to WIP. I didn't simply deleted it as maybe James wants to do some autogenerated branch cleanup. I filed https://bugs.launchpad.net/udd/+bug/806940 Thanks. That's not quite what happened. The issue is that the branch didn't contain the same .pc info as the unpacked source package. This is what caused the collision, and the conflicts are just an artefact of a bug in the way that it handles that. I'll update the bug with more info. Thanks, James -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot Report 2011-06-10
Benjamin Drung [2011-06-11 9:16 +0200]: Am Freitag, den 10.06.2011, 13:09 +0200 schrieb Didier Roche: Those issues where we loose contributor and our time just for ensuring and reporting commits in the right branch make me think that for desktop team branch (as most of them are in ~ubuntu-desktop/package_name/ubuntu, we should maybe point the canonical branch (lp:ubuntu/pakage_name) to them? Same with compiz which is under ~compiz? Yes, please use lp:ubuntu/package_name. Last time I talked to James, he said that the lp:ubuntu/ branches should only be full-source ones, not the debian/ only branches that the desktop team uses in their branches. I'd actually prefer if the lp:ubuntu/branch would not be created in the first place for packages which already have Vcs-Bzr: pointing to launchpad. Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot Report 2011-06-10
Benjamin Drung bdr...@ubuntu.com wrote: Am Freitag, den 10.06.2011, 13:09 +0200 schrieb Didier Roche: Those issues where we loose contributor and our time just for ensuring and reporting commits in the right branch make me think that for desktop team branch (as most of them are in ~ubuntu-desktop/package_name/ubuntu, we should maybe point the canonical branch (lp:ubuntu/pakage_name) to them? Same with compiz which is under ~compiz? Yes, please use lp:ubuntu/package_name. Aren't the ubuntu-desktop branches /debian only branches and the canonical UDD branches are full source branches? It seems to me these should not be mixed in the same namespace. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report for 2011-06-08
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 18:39 -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote: LP: #750339 - request-tracker3.8 security update for lucid and request-tracker3.6 for hardy. This took a while due to lots of review (many CVEs fixed in each), building in our proposed ppa, shuffling to -proposed and setting all tags/subscriptions as per SecurityTeam/SponsorsQueue LP: #788818 - unbound security update for lucid and maverick. Review, ACK, upload. Waiting on builds for publication. LP: #791497 - gnome-packagekit in Ubuntu. Review, strip out irrelevant changes in debdiff (based on feedback in the bug), comment in bug and upload. Sitting in NEW. LP: #790101 - gkamus FTBFS. Review, ACK, upload LP: #794655 - gwyddion not compatible with unity. Review, ACK upload to natty-proposed. Do steps 3 and 4 of StableReleaseUpdates#procedure. Forgot one: LP: #794760 - Sync cmake 2.8.4+dfsg.1-3 (main) from Debian unstable (main) -- Jamie Strandboge | http://www.canonical.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report, 2011-05-30
On Monday, May 30, 2011 08:41:10 AM Martin Pitt wrote: Hello all, I just finished my 4 hour patch pilot shift. When I started this morning, there were 102 items in the queue, when I left there were 60. - lp:~allison/ubuntu/oneiric/backuppc/no-perl-suid: do quick security review, merge/upload It looks like this might be a useful addition to the discussion in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=581950 Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2011-05-25
Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 09:45 -0400 schrieb Stéphane Graber: The following should be removed from the sponsor list: [...] All done except the following, because I can't change the status for it. https://code.launchpad.net/~smoser/ubuntu/natty/sudo/lp-768625/+merge/58762 (mvo uploaded to proposed) -- Benjamin Drung Debian Ubuntu Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2011-05-25
Benjamin Drung [2011-05-26 18:48 +0200]: All done except the following, because I can't change the status for it. https://code.launchpad.net/~smoser/ubuntu/natty/sudo/lp-768625/+merge/58762 (mvo uploaded to proposed) Set to merged. Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report 2011-05-04
On Wed, 4 May 2011 14:27:18 +0100, Colin Watson cjwat...@ubuntu.com wrote: == Auto-importer changes (bzr history only) == These happen when the source package as uploaded doesn't quite match the branch (often things like differences in an autogenerated debian/control), or when the branch wasn't properly tagged before upload. I generally follow the rule of thumb that I merge just the history (with 'bzr merge BRANCH; bzr revert .') if the extra history has things like extra contributor credit not reflected in the auto-imported branch, and reject it if it doesn't really add anything substantial. In some cases the branch really does have extra commits not reflected in the auto-import branch (this happens if somebody had committed to lp:ubuntu/foo but not uploaded, and somebody else uploaded something else independently), but I didn't see any cases of that today. Hi Colin, Thanks for explaining this. It seems that the reason for these merge proposals was insufficiently clear. In order to help with that I have a change to the importer to add some (hopefully) clear instructions to the description when it creates them in future. I'll commit this when I get off the plane. If anyone sees any issues with the importer (and that includes things like poor documentation or unclear actions that it takes) then please file a bug at https://bugs.launchpad.net/udd. We would appreciate everyone's help in improving the service so that it only creates merge proposals when needed by filing bugs when it creates extra ones. Thanks, James -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report 2011-05-04
I forgot to note: 79 outstanding requests at the start of my shift, 59 at the end (so at least four came in during my shift). -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2011-04-15
On 15.04.2011 23:36, Scott Moser wrote: I did make some progress. One overall theme I see is that there are things in that queue that should not be there. That means that patch-pilots (or anyone using it, really) potentially lose time reading bugs and coming to the conclusion that this is not ready. My thoughts exactly.. it was the first pilot day for me, and after learning how the procedure works I spent quite a lot of time going through the bugs on the list. I could've documented those to save you some time, but.. :) t -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2011-03-14
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 23:35:57 (CET), Micah Gersten wrote: On 03/14/2011 12:37 PM, Dustin Kirkland wrote: snip / * 734331 - fix little packaging/build bug This upload was lacking a proper E-Mail address in the changelog. I don't see a requirement for this to be valid in Debian/Ubuntu policy 4.4, but I wanted to ask anyways. Is this a requirement? I hope so. I'd love to have Gal CC'ed in this mail. Additionally, I fail to spot the change that was documented as +- Restore a Doxygen file that excidentaly got into the changeset of the bug Moreover, such packaging fixes really should be forwarded to Debian. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2011-03-14
On 03/14/2011 12:37 PM, Dustin Kirkland wrote: snip / * 734331 - fix little packaging/build bug This upload was lacking a proper E-Mail address in the changelog. I don't see a requirement for this to be valid in Debian/Ubuntu policy 4.4, but I wanted to ask anyways. Is this a requirement? Thanks, Micah -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2011-03-14
Am Montag, den 14.03.2011, 17:35 -0500 schrieb Micah Gersten: On 03/14/2011 12:37 PM, Dustin Kirkland wrote: snip / * 734331 - fix little packaging/build bug This upload was lacking a proper E-Mail address in the changelog. I don't see a requirement for this to be valid in Debian/Ubuntu policy 4.4, but I wanted to ask anyways. Is this a requirement? IMHO yes. It should be possible to contact the author of the upload by email. -- Benjamin Drung Debian Ubuntu Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report 2011-03-07
On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 10:06 +, Dave Walker wrote: On 08/03/11 02:45, Bryce Harrington wrote: * If the UDD branches have diverged or are out of date, the contributor has no way on knowing without checking manually, via rmadison, launchpad, etc. A contributor shouldn't have to do this manually, as its' easily missed and very frustrating. FWIW there is a high priority bug about this assigned to the Bazaar team: https://bugs.launchpad.net/udd/+bug/609187 * Additionally, I when merge+commit someone elses branch - I feel really rude making the bzr history look like it was my work.. Whilst I agree I would be the merge author (as in the person that decided to do it), I am not the person that did most of the work. It seems only appropriate to set the --author tag appropriately and therefore bzr marking myself as the committer for traceability. I wish debcommit had native support for this, but instead of fixing this properly i've been lazy and written a crappy script[3] to automate this, which i call debcommit-sponsor (not really related to debcommit!)... bzr being awesome, pulls in the changelog difference in $EDITOR. I think this is mainly a display issue with the default of -n1 for bzr log, where bzr only shows the mainline revisions and not the merged revisions. Ideally bzr should somehow be giving credit to all the authors of the merged commits when showing just the mainline. I.e.: revno: 64 [merge] merge committer: The Merger me...@example.com authors: Contributor1 contribut...@ubuntu.com, Contributor2 contribut...@ubuntu.com branch nick: trunk timestamp: Thu 2010-05-13 18:19:25 +0200 message: Foo And perhaps just list the number of authors if there are too many. There might be some performance consequences of doing this though, as there are more revisions to access upon log. Cheers, Jelmer -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report for March 4th, 2011.
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 01:34:18PM +1100, Luke Yelavich wrote: Nothing on IRC, so here is what I looked at during my time as patch pilot today: * Merge proposal: lp:~mathieu-tl/ubuntu/natty/isc-dhcp/dhcp6 into lp:ubuntu/isc-dhcp - Needs fixing, Changes have been made to the package in natty since branch was submitted. * Bug 721703: Awaiting reply from patch submitter as to whether the patch is needed in Ubuntu prior to upstream encorporating it into a release, since an affected package in Ubuntu is now built successfully. Marked incomplete. * Bug 726783: Sent patch to Debian and upstream. Hopefully Debian will apply this patch in short order, and we can sync the package. Bug set to triaged. So I'm piloting now and saw the merge proposal[2] for the above bug in the sponsoring report[1]. 1) What is the right status for the merge proposal since it has been forwarded upstream? In my mind it doesn't really need to be in the sponsoring report anymore. 2) Is the right status documented anywhere? [1] http://reports.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/sponsoring/ [2] https://code.launchpad.net/~w-shackleton/ubuntu/natty/x2vnc/x2vnc-fix-726783/+merge/51644 -- Brian Murray Ubuntu Bug Master signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report for March 4th, 2011.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Brian Murray br...@ubuntu.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 01:34:18PM +1100, Luke Yelavich wrote: Nothing on IRC, so here is what I looked at during my time as patch pilot today: * Merge proposal: lp:~mathieu-tl/ubuntu/natty/isc-dhcp/dhcp6 into lp:ubuntu/isc-dhcp - Needs fixing, Changes have been made to the package in natty since branch was submitted. [...] So I'm piloting now and saw the merge proposal[2] for the above bug in the sponsoring report[1]. 1) What is the right status for the merge proposal since it has been forwarded upstream? In my mind it doesn't really need to be in the sponsoring report anymore. 2) Is the right status documented anywhere? [1] http://reports.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/sponsoring/ [2] https://code.launchpad.net/~w-shackleton/ubuntu/natty/x2vnc/x2vnc-fix-726783/+merge/51644 I'm not certain where it's documented, but above, see one of my merge requests. It had already been reviewed before Luke took a look. I set it to Work In Progress this morning (guess I could have deleted it otherwise), and I can't see it now in the sponsoring overview... Which leads me to believe that setting the merge to a status other than Needs Review is the right procedure (I think Work In Progress needs to be set by the requester though), unless somebody else did something I'm not aware of? I thought I had seen something pass by in email about this, but I couldn't find any trace of it. Regards, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre mathieu...@ubuntu.com Freenode: cyphermox, Jabber: mathieu...@gmail.com 4096R/EE018C93 1967 8F7D 03A1 8F38 732E FF82 C126 33E1 EE01 8C93 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report
Practically 14, because there is one entry which should not exist anymore. I can not remove it from sponsors overview. 2011-02-01 lp:~legolas/ubuntu/natty/php5/5.3.5 5.3.5 php5 core branchesari-tczew 1 comments, (Disapprove)main 2011-02-01 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:21 AM, Benjamin Drung bdr...@ubuntu.com wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 02.03.2011, 14:42 +0100 schrieb Martin Pitt: I did about 4 hours of piloting today, reducing the queue from 41 to 15: [...] Congrats. We reached a new minimum. \o/ Next target: Get the queue empty for one second. Incidentally, I see a handful of merge proposals that are currently marked as Needs fixing or similar. Just like you unsubscribe ubuntu-sponsors from a bug when you determine the patch needs work, you should do the same for merge proposals - change the Status at the top of the MP to Work in progress, and ask the contributor to change it back when they've fixed the issues. That'll make it fall off the sponsorship queue, which will make sure that the queue is just for changes that are actually ready to be sponsored. - Evan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Patch Pilot report 2011-02-08 [Was: Re: Patch Pilot report 2011-02-11]
I actually piloted on Tuesday the 8th... On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 09:21 -0600, Jamie Strandboge wrote: I processed a merge request, a sync request and commented on a rebuild request after doing a local build which resulted in a FTBFS. I ended up spending a good bit of time focusing on investigating, processing and testing a patch for the nearly 4 year old LP: #104525 (which the TB approved and asked if I could process, being both the last uploader and the patch pilot of the moment). I poked around another bug, but didn't have time to thoroughly review it. -- Jamie Strandboge | http://www.canonical.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot Report
On Feb 11, 2011, at 03:33 PM, Dustin Kirkland wrote: Note: I had to work my patch pilot day today from the customer lounge at the VW dealership (getting some service done on wife's car). Bazaar branches/checkouts require a LOT of bandwidth; something that I don't notice so much working from home where I have sufficient bandwidth, but on a low bandwidth connection, UDD is a PITA. apt-get source is much nicer. Just saying... Improving this is one of the big 2011 goals for the Bazaar team. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report and feedback
On 3 February 2011 08:22, Benjamin Drung bdr...@ubuntu.com wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 02.02.2011, 22:57 +0200 schrieb Jani Monoses: * Bzr usage confusion I was only familiar with 'debdiff against latest source package' type of uploading on behalf of another dev, so it took me a while to figure out how to make the same change to both bzr and the package making sure not to accidentally introduce a delta however small. The number of more than one official sounding branch name in some projects (ubuntu/totem vs desktop-team/totem IIRC) just caused me to have a few failed attempts at merging. Did you try sponsor-patch from ubuntu-dev-tools? Thanks for suggesting that. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/CodeReviews says You may find the sponsor-patch (from ubuntu-dev-tools package) program helpful. but not much more. Could you explain it a bit more, bdrung? Thanks Martin -- Benjamin Drung Debian Ubuntu Developer -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report and feedback
Am Donnerstag, den 03.02.2011, 09:14 +1100 schrieb Martin Pool: On 3 February 2011 08:22, Benjamin Drung bdr...@ubuntu.com wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 02.02.2011, 22:57 +0200 schrieb Jani Monoses: * Bzr usage confusion I was only familiar with 'debdiff against latest source package' type of uploading on behalf of another dev, so it took me a while to figure out how to make the same change to both bzr and the package making sure not to accidentally introduce a delta however small. The number of more than one official sounding branch name in some projects (ubuntu/totem vs desktop-team/totem IIRC) just caused me to have a few failed attempts at merging. Did you try sponsor-patch from ubuntu-dev-tools? Thanks for suggesting that. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/CodeReviews says You may find the sponsor-patch (from ubuntu-dev-tools package) program helpful. but not much more. Could you explain it a bit more, bdrung? The tools downloads a patch / branch for a given LP bug number, does some sanity checks, builds the package, create some diffs, and let's you upload the package. More details can be found in the man page. -- Benjamin Drung Debian Ubuntu Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch Pilot report 2010-12-03
Am Freitag, den 03.12.2010, 09:50 -0600 schrieb Jamie Strandboge: I thought it would be nice if the date of the last comment was shown in the sponsoring report[2]. That way it is easier to coordinate work-- if today's other patch pilot already commented on it today, and he/she was the last commenter, I have no reason to look at it. Might also be nice if the sponsoring report[2] had the last comment/date of the last comment for merge requests for the same reason. Feel free to contact me on IRC to get help on implementing this feature. -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report 2010-12-02
Am Donnerstag, den 02.12.2010, 17:47 -0500 schrieb Barry Warsaw: Probably the tool I used most was sponsor-patch(1), part of the ubuntu-dev-tools package. It's a great little tool for grabbing the source branch and applying either a patch or merge proposal, then building the source package. I tend to use sbuild instead of pbuilder, so the --build option isn't as helpful to me. Great to see that you like sponsor-patch. Check out sponsor-patch from ubuntu-dev-tools 0.107 (Debian experimental and soon Ubuntu natty), which supports sbuild as builder! -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report 2010-12-02
On Dec 03, 2010, at 12:31 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote: Great to see that you like sponsor-patch. Check out sponsor-patch from ubuntu-dev-tools 0.107 (Debian experimental and soon Ubuntu natty), which supports sbuild as builder! Very cool! -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
